Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

A 31-year-old physicist and biochemist, Jeremy England by name, appears to have shown, in a recently-published
paper, that the emergence of life from non-living
matter is not just statistically probable, but more or less inevitable.

'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,'
England said, calling the emergence of life from inanimate matter 'as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.'
News Article

In a twist that will surprise those who claim that life 'violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics', England's proposed theory is actually
based on thermodynamics. In a nutshell, he shows that nature favours arrangements of matter that are good at dissipating heat. Living things
are, it seems, especially good at this.

His theory does not supersede or discredit Darwinian evolution, but is complementary to it. 'I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are
wrong,' he said. 'On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a
more general phenomenon.'

Although England's ideas are new and still being debated by scientists in his field, those who have examined his work say his theoretical results are
valid. The next step is to devise experiments that will test them under lab conditions. That work is, apparently, about to begin.

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

I have always believed that life and intelligent life isn't an 'accident' as creationist call those of us who support Darwin. It was always
inevitable, the life-span of a species is just a day in the life of our planet, when you see different forms of life coming and going, intelligent
life was bound to happen. It's like rolling a dice and waiting for a ten sixes in a row, it may be random, but you eventually get a perfect
result.

I hope his research comes up with something more solid, answers to questions like these help us find reason to existence.

I feel that life forms from frequency coupled with vibration. Energy signatures that can assemble DNA to form. The raw materials need to be there
also. Couple these things together and examine the nearly instantaneous communication between things far apart, and you find that this communication
or bond between distant worlds is relevant to life here on earth. We may have this tie to many worlds, the bond shares the vibration frequency.
Maybe I have a few wrong names for these strange events that there is evidence of but I don't need to memorize names, I don't usually talk to
scientists.

Even Einstein mentioned something about this bond that traveled much faster than the speed of light.

I have always believed that life and intelligent life isn't an 'accident' as creationist call those of us who support Darwin. It was always
inevitable

This also opens high possibilities for life to start on other planets with similar conditions like on earth.

I heartily agree with both these statements. I have long believed that the universe is thoroughly with life. And I have, in recent years, often used
England's very words to describe Darwinian evolution: 'a special case of a more general phenomenon.'

I think we're going to have to broaden the definition of 'life' pretty soon.

I enjoy the theory and I think it might just have some application, but it should be noted that a mathematical formula can only explain other
mathematical formulas. The attempt to reduce the history of life, its cause, and the entire process of organic existence to a mathematical formula is
simply wishful thinking, one that relies on a pythagorean superstition of numbers and other axiomatic assumptions.

It should be noted that a mathematical formula can only explain other mathematical formulas.

Mathematical formulas helped build the Pyramids. Mathematical formulas helped mariners navigate round the world in the days of sail. Mathematical
formulas enabled Halley to predict exactly when his comet would return and prove him right. Mathematical formulas enable us to predict where a thrown
stone will fall, and how to navigate a spacecraft through the gravitational maze of Saturn's system of rings and moons. Mathematical formulas explain
how electrons behave in a magnetic field. Mathematical formulas govern the operations of the computer on which you typed your post. There is even a
mathematical formula to determine how likely it is that an animal will undertake a particular act of altruism.

And so it goes, ad infinitum. There are very few phenomena in the world that cannot be described and explained by mathematical formulae.

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

edit on 23/1/14 by Astyanax because: of typos.

Ok i'm not a creationist... I don't subscribe to any theory on the origins of life atm.. but to lobby a answer to Your opening post question: The
creationists will respond with applause and rally behind this idea as it would look like this theory if proven would lend credence to this little
quote..

Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Replace man with ALL life and ergo you've gave the creationists more of a foothold

Well only point I'm trying to make is don't underestimate their ability to twist things to suit their views.Well the reasonable ones anyway...most
well just bury their heads in the sand or as You put it, post videos of kettles( No offense intended to dusty1 by the way.to each their own.)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.